MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977684524 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450780417

A laboratory investigation of horizontal well heavy oil—water flows

2000· article· en· W1977684524 on OpenAlexaffvenue
M. McKibben, Randall G. Gillies, C. A. Shook

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Research Council (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFroude numberMechanicsFlow (mathematics)Fraction (chemistry)Pipeline transportPetroleum engineeringGeologyWater flowEnvironmental scienceOil wellMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringChemistryEnvironmental engineeringChromatographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Experimental simulations of model well‐bore flows in laboratory pipelines show that frictional energy losses (i.e., pressure drops) are reduced when water is present with heavy oil. The reduction has been shown to increase with the water fraction. The mixtures are not oil in water emulsions in the classical sense of the term. At the low axial velocities which characterize wellbore flows, the flow regime is inherently intermittent. Using a variety of methods the structure of the flow has been examined to identify the flow regime and the cause of the reduced pressure gradients. It has been found that the water travels as large slugs and that oil is invariably present at the wall when the mixture flows through a steel pipe. The evidence suggests that a significant fraction of the oil is transported within the water slugs. A tentative flow regime boundary between the regions of intermittent and continuous water‐assisted flow is proposed in terms of the mixture Froude number and the injected water fraction.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.142
Teacher spread0.139 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicFluid Dynamics and MixingFrench-language works237,207